The paradox of tolerance ...

I recently read something so apparent yet overlooked.

An author discussed his view of the conflict between relativism and tolerance, in the context of our current society. (Bear with me, this will go somewhere.)  

Relativism – grossly oversimplified – asserts that morality and what’s right or wrong are only artificial constructs relative to specific cultures and societies and are often based on circumstances unique to each. Therefore, anybody’s interpretation of morality, for example, largely depends on who they are as a product of their specific culture or society.

In essence, all mature cultures and societies have evolved their own set of rules and taboos over time that work for the people within them. What’s acceptable and the norm in one may be anathema to others, while what’s acceptable and the norm in others may be anathema to them. It’s a mistake to judge another’s culture and values solely by those of your own, in other words. 

Tolerance, greatly simplified, promotes the acceptance of the validity of differing beliefs and values without judging these solely against your own beliefs and values. Validity does not necessarily mean agreement; it just implies others’ beliefs and values should be respected.    

The two seem complimentary.  And haven’t both been taught as cultural ideals to us generation after generation?  Especially tolerance for people from other cultures, and people with beliefs that differ from your own?  If you don’t you’re a bigot, right?

But what happens when tolerance is not a two-way street? 

What if a person’s concept of intolerance is shaped only by their own values and their personal beliefs? What happens when one side refuses to accept or even acknowledge the possible validity of another’s values?  Does that make them the intolerant one? 

I think it does. Tolerance too often becomes simply a matter of perspective: I’m tolerant because my beliefs and values are right; you’re intolerant because you don’t agree with me.        

This is precisely how extreme intolerance under the guise of tolerance can rear its ugly head.  That’s when the name-calling and sometimes violence start. 

That’s why those fighting so hard – sometimes violently – to oppose anyone spreading “intolerance” seem to be the ones far more intolerant than the people they’re attacking.

We see that in our politics all too often these days. Nobody seems willing to entertain the possibility other views might be valid or should be respected at all. Some don’t even want those views to be publicly expressed, much less discussed rationally, because those views have already been judged wrong by them, according to their standards. 

We’re in an era where we’ve divided ourselves into what might be called microcultures – each with its own value system that transcends our broader traditional American culture.  

Consequently, tolerance or intolerance are increasingly in the eye of the beholder, dependent on what their microculture dictates.  Cultural and racial diversity might be the popular cause these days, but diversity of opinions – or even the tolerance of diverse opinions, is becoming less and less welcome among many of these microcultures.  Their opinions must be right and righteous because everyone in their microculture agrees on them; therefore, anyone who disagrees is wrong and possibly evil.    

So much for relativism. And so much for accepting the possible validity of differing beliefs and values without judging these solely against your own beliefs and values.

Within certain microcultures, supporting existing laws that prohibit illegal immigration is intolerant; opposing enforcing those same laws exhibits tolerance.  Sheltering and protecting from deportation violent criminals here illegally is tolerant; favoring deportation of those same violent criminals is intolerant. Encouraging the immigration of people from cultures and religions that support female genital mutilation, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of Christians and Jews, and forced marriages of children to adult men, is a sign of tolerance; anyone who simply questions why we’d want to bring in those people whose values are so alien to ours, is intolerant.

It’s all been decided. So shut up. 

This is just nuts. This is one-way tolerance. 

There is real, objective intolerance in the world everyone can agree on.  Nobody disagrees that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are intolerant. Nobody wants to listen to their hateful rhetoric against Jews, blacks, homosexuals, immigrants, or whomever.  But they have a legal right under our Constitution to express their views as long as they are not inciting violence.   

Yet when they are physically attacked by armed protestors who want to silence them in the name of fighting intolerance, who are the intolerant?

Shift scenarios for a moment.  At the rally in DC following Trump’s inauguration, those opposed to Trump talked about blowing up the White House. Later, an actor mused about assassinating Trump.  A comedian held up an image of her holding a severed head intended to look like Trump. They said Trump deserved it because of his intolerance toward women, blacks, immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, the transgendered, single mothers, and the poor, among others.

They said they were standing up against his intolerance.        

People who hated Trump – including the media – didn’t see a problem. By their standards, within their own microculture, this was all fair game.  Yet nobody physically attacked them to prevent them from expressing those hateful and clearly intolerant opinions, did they? If someone had, they would have been crucified for being intolerant of perfectly acceptable views.        

What is tolerance and what isn’t shouldn’t depend entirely on your own values. When someone uses opposition to intolerance as a weapon for their own intolerance, it’s wrong. 

      

Consider the antifa movement. Black-clad anarchists emerge to prevent anyone hearing any message they find intolerant. But who are they to decide what’s acceptable and what isn’t?  Who made them the sole arbiter of what’s allowed and what isn’t?

They gave themselves that role. Supporters of Black Lives Matter have done the same.

Antifa and BLM aren’t alone in deciding what is right and what is wrong. In the name of tolerance, there are now speech codes and prohibited words on college campuses. Administrators and activist groups are shutting down speakers who question open borders, transgender rights, identity politics, and of course racial or gender quotas, among other things. 

Those speakers are deemed “haters” and intolerant. And to protect their students and others from hearing a view that may differ from their own, they are not allowed on campus. 

Speakers have been prevented from fulfilling speaking engagements because they might espouse “intolerant” views. Riots have happened with property damage, assaults on police, and physical attacks on speakers in the name of supporting tolerance.

Meanwhile, speakers who openly promote assassinating police, are in favor of segregating dormitories for black students, support banning whites from certain campus events solely on the basis of their race, blame Jews for all the problems in the Middle East, and cheer for Islamic terrorists who kill innocent women and children, are welcomed with open arms.

Because that’s what tolerance is all about.       

This is positively Orwellian. 

And that, in a nutshell, is the paradox of tolerance.